The Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board (ORSSAB) held its regularly scheduled monthly
meeting on Monday, December 10, 2001, at the Garden Plaza Hotel in Oak Ridge, beginning at
6:00 p.m. A video tape recording of the meeting was made and may be viewed by calling
the SSAB support office at 865-241-3665.

Mr. Bobby Davis, Leader of the DOE-ORO Emergency Management Team, and
Mr. Steve Wyatt, Director of Public Affairs for DOE-ORO, discussed the emergency
management measures and communications plans DOE has put in place at its Oak Ridge
facilities.

In his presentation, Mr. Davis explained the purpose of the DOE Oak
Ridge Reservation (ORR) Emergency Plan, the types of events it covers, emergency action
levels, event categorization, and the use of public warning sirens and the Emergency Alert
System. Mr. Wyatt described the goals of and procedures used by the Oak Ridge Emergency
Public Communications Program. In addition to warning sirens and the Emergency Alert
System, DOE uses the Joint Information Center (JIC) as a primary means to distribute
accurate and timely information to the public and the media. Copies of Mr. Davis and
Mr. Wyatts overheads are included as Attachments 1 and 2, respectively.

After the presentations, the following questions were asked by members
of the Board and the public, and the following responses were given by Mr. Davis and Mr.
Wyatt.

Question

Response (abridged)

Mr. Vowell: A Regional Emergency
Management Forum was held on Tuesday, November 27. Can you tell us what took place at the
meeting?

Mr. Davis: The forum included Emergency
Management System directors, first responders, members of the SSAB and the Local Oversight
Committee, and participants from the DOE sites. The purpose was to convey ORR information
and inform offsite participants about onsite hazards.

Mr. Revilla: On your site map you
mention sector population. Does that take into account businesses and the plant
populations?

Mr. Davis: Yes, it does.

Ms. Staley: How long would it be in an
emergency before the public notification sirens are sounded?

Mr. Davis: As soon as the Plant Shift
Superintendent determines theres a general emergency.

Ms. Staley: Who is responsible for
putting out information to parents about where children are taken during an emergency?

Mr. Wyatt: During an emergency, that
information is sent out through the state via the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency,
the JIC, and the Emergency Alert System. Mr. Davis: From a planning standpoint, the
state works with the county and the city to determine relocation logistics. The Oak Ridge
fire chief is responsible for communicating information to the schools through the city
systems.

Mr. Davis: We coordinate with the sites
for emergency planning purposes and take advantage of any analysis theyve done for
their safety documents. Were encouraging the plants to treat the hazard assessments
as quasi safety authorization basis documents.

Mr. Kennerly: Can you give an overview
of how the emergency system worked during the September 11 crisis?

Mr. Wyatt: We learned about it through
the television and were immediately inundated with calls from the media wanting to know
what the security posture would be in Oak Ridge. Mr. Davis: The decision
made by our managers was to staff the emergency operations centers until we understood the
situation. Staffing was reduced to a core later on to provide coordination with
headquarters and other entities. We did not declare an emergency.

Mr. Kennerly: Does DOE direct the
emergency centers at the sites during an emergency like this?

Mr. Davis: Direction went out to the
contractors, and they were expected to implement it. In a broader sense, theres an
emergency director (at first the Plant Shift Superintendent, then the Crisis Manager at
the Emergency Operations Center) who manages the response. DOE is there in an oversight
role.

Mr. Trammell: Can you give examples of
the three types of emergency classifications?

Mr. Davis: Weve had an
"alert" (the lowest level) during the K-1302 fluorine leak but nothing above
that.

Ms. Bonner: Do you have an idea of the
time line for implementing the new communications initiatives you spoke of?

Mr. Wyatt: Weve already started
working with employees and on the web site, and over the next few months well look
into doing mailings. Local phone books contain emergency information, but we need to look
at their usefulness. Mr. Davis: Weve examined emergency information
distribution by TVA and other agencies, and theyve determined that calendars are a
good method.

Ms. Cothron: Is there an evacuation
plan, and how do you communicate it?

Mr. Davis: The telephone book shows the
evacuation plan developed by the state. The Emergency Alert System and the JIC will notify
the public about what areas are to be evacuated and what routes are to be used.

Ms. Staley: Have you included the input
of any Oak Ridge residents in determining what would help them better understand emergency
communications?

Mr. Wyatt: Weve talked to a lot of
people, including experts in emergency preparedness education, the nuclear industry, and
other areas. Public education is a real challenge, so we welcome any input.

Ms. Susan Gawarecki: What roles do the
Local Emergency Planning Committees play in emergency management planning?

Mr. Davis: The committees look at
hazardous materials in the county and help come up with emergency plans for that county.

Deputy Designated Federal Official and Ex-Officio Comments

Ms. Jones reported that EPA had submitted comments to DOE on the
K-25/K-27 site sampling and analysis plan, the waste characterization plan, the action
memorandum, and the work plan.

Mr. Nelson announced that E.W. Seals has resigned from the SSAB. DOE is
in the process of checking on the availability of a replacement for Mr. Seals and hopes to
have someone in place for the January Board meeting.

Regarding the fluorine leak last December in Building K-1302 at the
East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), Mr. Nelson reported that a contract for the removal
of approximately 67 pounds of fluorine from the tanks within the building is being
negotiated with Integrated Environmental Services. A scrubber system will be used to
extract the fluorine from the tanks, and then they will be steam cleaned. The contractor
will be held to a no-odor threshold during the performance of this work. Plans will be
prepared and a readiness review completed before this work can proceed. Current plans are
to have the removal completed this fiscal year. The demolition contractor performing the
decontamination and decommissioning activities in this area will then remove the tanks
when the facility is demolished.

Mr. Shaffer asked if the contract for fluorine removal is specifically
for the facility itself or the piping to other facilities as well. Mr. Nelson responded
that the contract is only for materials in the building. Mr. Shaffer remarked that the
tanks were supposedly purged years ago, so what assurances does the public have that the
other piping outside the facility had been purged? Mr. Nelson responded that he did not
have an answer to that question. As decontamination and decommissioning activities are
begun, he said, EM will have to look at that issue very carefully.

Mr. Nelson introduced Bob Sleeman, Group Leader for the DOE-ORO
Integration Team, who presented an overview of the FY 2002 Oak Ridge Environmental
Management (EM) Program budget (Attachment 3). Mr. Sleeman reported that the
DOE-Headquarters allocation has been received, and Oak Ridge EM funding has decreased from
last year. Major projects at ETTP, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Y-12 plant will
be kept going, but some minor ones may not be funded this year. (Updated budget
information was distributed by Mr. Sleeman to the Board via e-mail on December 12 and is
included in these minutes as Attachment 4.)

Mr. Kopp asked Mr. Owsley to comment on a recent newspaper article
stating that DOE has notified the state that all references to mixed transuranic waste
would be removed from the ORR Site Treatment Plan. Mr. Owsley explained that DOE made
this determination as a result of a 1996 amendment to a Land Withdrawal Act to allow
disposal of the material at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. In the
states view, he said, DOE is interpreting that amendment out of context, and in any
event, it did not apply to Tennessee state law. The state has primacy in its Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act program, and therefore, DOE must comply with all provisions
of the Site Treatment Plan, including those that apply to mixed transuranic wastes.
Mr. Nelson remarked that DOE intends to treat and ship the waste, but the issue in
question is putting a milestone for it in the Site Treatment Plan. The DOE-Headquarters
legal office has said DOE-ORO could not milestone this activity in the plan because of the
Land Withdrawal Act.

Ms. Halsey distributed an Environmental Restoration Project Update
(Attachment 5), and she reported that one or more of the Federal Facility Agreement
mid-managers will be at the January Board meeting to give an update on recent watershed
remediation decision-making.

Public Comment

Mr. Norman Mulvenon, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Panel of the
Local Oversight Committee, urged members to vote "no" or delay the vote on the
draft recommendations on DOEs "Top-to-Bottom Review" so that the entire
Board membership could make more informed comment on the topic.

Announcements and Other Board Business

In recognition of Mr. Nelsons announced plans to retire from DOE
at the end of December, the Board presented Mr. Nelson with a plaque in appreciation for
his service as the ORSSAB Deputy Designated Federal Official since 1995. A cake was served
in his honor during the meeting break.

The next Board meeting will be Wednesday, January 9, at the Garden
Plaza Hotel in Oak Ridge.

Minutes of the November 14, 2001, Board meeting were approved without
change.

The Board reviewed draft recommendations on the DOE EM Top-to-Bottom
Review. A motion was approved to amend Suggestion 1 of the recommendation to read:
"We would consider for all future EM projects the route of the non-time-critical
removal action, as apposed to the full-blown Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act remedial action project decision-making process, and
involve the public in this decision process." Following additional discussion, a
motion was approved to send the recommendations back to the Environmental Restoration
Committee for additional work. Mr. Alexander asked Ms. Halsey to report to the Board at
its next meeting on the status of the DOE Top-to-Bottom Review.

Mr. Osborne gave a report on public outreach, and he distributed
copies of the ORSSAB FY 2001 Annual Report (Attachment 7).

Mr. Gibson gave a report on Executive Committee activities:

 The EM Advisory Board Alternative Technologies to Incineration
Committee (of which Mr. Gibson is a member) will meet February 2021 in Washington,
D.C.

 The next SSAB chairs conference call has been set for December
17 at 3:30 p.m.

 Norman Mulvenon has been selected as the stakeholder participant
for the SSAB Groundwater Workshop panel discussion.

 Mr. Gibson, as a member of the Community Input Team of the ETTP
Phase II Drinking Water Project, recently received a copy of a letter from Parallax, Inc.,
the project contractor, stating that DOE has directed Parallax to bring the project to
conclusion.

 The Executive Committee declined to make further comment on
DOEs denial of the Boards request for a seat on the ORR Land Use Focus Group.
The committee has asked for a copy of the focus groups mission statement, however.

Ms. Staley moved to approve the minutes of the November 14, 2001, Board
meeting. Mr. Shaffer seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved
(Mr. Kopp was absent for the vote).

M12/10/01.2

Mr. Alexander moved to approve the draft recommendations on the DOE EM
Top-to-Bottom Review. No second was required on the motion.

Mr. Kennerly moved to amended Suggestion 1 of the recommendation to
read: "We would consider for all future EM projects the route of the
non-time-critical removal action, as apposed to the full-blown Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act remedial action project decision-making
process." Mr. Million seconded the motion to amend, and the motion was approved,
13 in favor, 1 opposed (Ms. Bonner), and 1 abstention (Mr. Revilla).

Mr. Shafer moved to send the recommendations back to the Environmental
Restoration Committee for additional work. Mr. Revilla seconded the motion, and the motion
was approved, 11 in favor, 3 opposed (Ms. Bonner, Mr. Kopp, Mr. McLeod), and 1
abstention (Mr. Alexander).

M12/10/01.3

Mr. Alexander moved that the Board create an ad hoc committee to revise
the ORSSAB bylaws to reflect the fact that the ORSSAB Stewardship Committee will serve as
the Citizens Board for Stewardship. No second was made on the motion. (Mr.
Shaffer agreed to update the Board as this activity is implemented as a task in the
Stewardship Committee work plan.)

Respectfully submitted,

Coralie A. Staley, Secretary

CAS/plo

Attachments (7) to these minutes are available upon request from the
SSAB support office.

Action Items

1. Ms. Halsey will report on the status of the DOE Top-to-Bottom
Review. Completed via report at the January 9 Board meeting